MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract B115: Plasma insulin-like growth factor 1, binding protein-3, and risk of prostate cancer: An update from the Health Professional Follow-up Study 1993–2004

2010· article· en· W2331723635 on OpenAlexaff
Katharina Nimptsch, Elizabeth A. Platz, Michaël Pollak, Walter C. Willett, Edward L. Giovannucci

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Prevention Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth Factors
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerMedicineProstateQuartileInternal medicineCancerOdds ratioOncologyInsulin-like growth factorProstatectomyConditional logistic regressionRisk factorConfidence intervalGynecologyEndocrinologyGrowth factorReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: The insulin-like growth factor (IGF) axis plays a role in growth and progression of prostate cancer cells. A pooled analysis concluded that high circulating IGF-1 is associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer. Some studies have indicated that the positive association is observed only for low-grade prostate cancer with a Gleason sum below 7. Results for IGF binding protein 3 (IGFBP-3) are inconclusive. Material and Methods: We previously reported in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS) a direct positive association between ELISA-measured plasma IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 and risk of prostate cancer (462 cases diagnosed after providing a blood specimen in 1993, but before February 1998). With additional follow-up through January 31st 2004, and 1331 case-control pairs in total, we were now able to investigate low-grade (Gleason sum <7, n= 635) and high-grade (Gleason sum ≥7, n=515) prostate cancer separately. In addition, we investigated potential effect modification by age at diagnosis, family history of prostate cancer and dietary lycopene, which, beyond acting as an anti-oxidant, may inhibit prostate cancer by interfering with IGF-1 signaling. Matched odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using conditional logistic regression. Results: ORs of total prostate cancer comparing top to bottom quartiles were 1.41 (95% CI 1.12–1.78, p-trend=0.001) for IGF-1 and 1.58 (95% CI 1.24–2.01, p-trend=0.003) for IGFBP-3. These results did not change remarkably when cases diagnosed within the first two years after blood draw were excluded. IGF-1 was more strongly associated with low-grade (OR=1.61 top versus bottom quartile, 95% CI 1.16–2.25, p-trend=0.01), than with high-grade (OR=1.29, 95% CI 0.89–1.88, p-trend-0.12) prostate cancer (p-heterogeneity=0.08). With IGFBP-3, significant positive associations were observed for both low-grade (OR=1.83 top versus bottom quartile, 95% CI 1.29–2.61) and high-grade (OR=1.60, 95% CI 1.08–2.37) prostate cancer (p-heterogeneity=0.84). We did not observe heterogeneous effects of IGF-1 or IGFBP-3 by age at diagnosis (</≥65 years), tomato sauce intake (≤/>2 servings/week) or plasma lycopene (</≥1123 mol/L, corresponding to 75th percentile in controls). The association between IGF-1 and total prostate cancer was slightly stronger among men with positive family of prostate cancer (OR per standard deviation in IGF-1 1.15, 95% CI 1.01–1.31) than in those without family history of prostate cancer (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.99–1.13, p-interaction=0.03). Conclusion: This large nested case-control study provides further evidence that IGF-1 may be preferentially associated with low-grade prostate cancer. We hypothesize that this observation reflects that high-grade prostate cancers are more autonomous, and, thus, less sensitive to IGF-1 levels than low-grade cancers. Citation Information: Cancer Prev Res 2010;3(1 Suppl):B115.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Prevention ResearchSame topicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth FactorsFrench-language works237,207